linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] configfs: Make multiple default

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080602230721.GD19500@mail.oracle.com>
Date:	Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:07:21 -0700
From:	Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@...cle.com>
To:	Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@...labs.com>
Cc:	ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] configfs: Make multiple default_group
	destructions lockdep friendly

	A couple comments.
	First, put a BUG_ON() where you have BAD BAD BAD - we shouldn't
be creating a depth we can't delete.

> @@ -392,6 +437,10 @@ static int configfs_detach_prep(struct d
>  			 * deep nesting of default_groups
>  			 */
>  			ret = configfs_detach_prep(sd->s_dentry);
> +			/* Update parent's lock_level so that remaining
> +			 * sibling children keep on globally increasing
> +			 * lock_level */
> +			copy_dirent_lock_level(sd, parent_sd);
>  			if (!ret)
>  				continue;
>  		} else

	I'm not sure I get this hunk.  If our parent was 1 and we are 2,
we are copying 2 to our parent so the parent can only have other
children at 3?

Joel

-- 

Life's Little Instruction Book #267

	"Lie on your back and look at the stars."

Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@...cle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/